The question then is why the hypocrisy? The answer is obvious. Because these liberals are hypocrites, hypocrisy is considered the norm for getting their way. The ends justify the means. Logic and common sense have nothing to do with it All that matters is how emotional, loud, and obnoxious these progressives can become in order to gain influence

I think it’s nothing more than a classic case of elitism-oriented, neo-progressivism that afflicts the recalcitrant-conditioned with the fall-back position of: Never am I so large as when I make you so small.

This evidences in actions such as emotional opinions, and fonts.

I agree. Have you noticed how much pride is expressed by the secular progressives in the form of becoming insulted? It is considered proof of their superiority that they must endure the stupidity of their intellectual inferiors.

I know you've studied Eastern religions so know that becoming insulted is a sign of ignorance and weakness. When I first read this in my studies I found it hard to accept. Surely that idiot over there must have some responsibility for me being insulted. But After I calmed down I had to admit it was true. There is no biological reason why I had to become insulted. It is just my weakness and a reaction provoked by a false sense of self importance.

In these times a person has to tip toe around the truth in order to avoid offending or insulting weak minds considered intelligent from becoming offended and acting loud and obnoxious. The result is being governed by lies designed to appeal to weakness and a false sense of self importance: the fruits of progressive education.

That one reacts either one way or another to challenging stimulus, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their intellect being capable of understanding the truth of things, from an unbiased perspective.

People can react as you've mentioned, because they have low self esteem, not necessarily a false sense of self importance.

As you are aware, all it takes is to make an attempt at fair mindedness rather than failing to question one's intrinsic biases.

The irony is thick... Even if others' are as hateful as you claim, shouldn't you at least strive to be better than them? You only stoop to their level and indulge in more of the same hate.

What are you talking about?

Is this a thread about transpeople in sport or a competition for the moral high ground? Some here are keen to frame discussions in those terms and I see that simply as gaming, unrelated to anything even vaguely philosophical. Is it important for you to feel that you have the moral high ground? If so, why?

As for this general debacle of a thread, look at it this way: If there was a thread about whether a wall is the best way for the US to retain sovereignty do you think it would be reasonable for people to skip the subject matter and simply use the thread as a chance to attack Mexicans as people? Would you defend those attacking the Mexicans? Would you consider their approach to be good philosophy?

I probably should leave these things more but I don't like what I see as cowardly bullying, attacks on those unable to fight back.

It would surely seem as though you have a thick irony mind.

Bottom line: people that pick on people for what ever reason, deserve to be picked on, so as to understand what it feels like. What self righteous people don't understand is that they're not gods, and that the only life they have any kind of right to dictate, is their own. It's an age old axiom known as: "live and let live."

The fact is that most that play that god role, aren't really smart enough to understand themselves, let alone the truths of the universe. The word fool comes to mind! As well as stupid, moronic, idiotic, and if I feel like being non-insulting, instead extremely accurate, IGNORANCE is actually the best fit.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend your beliefs, standing up for your beliefs or refrain from arguing against the people in this thread. I'm not defending any of the individuals in this thread. I'm really referring to this comment:

This seems to just be just conservative tut-tutting about the concept of sex changes per se, seemingly because conservatives believe humans are all made perfect (aside from Democrats, liberals, progressives, secularists, Muslims, blecks, gays, transgenders, Chinese and women).

Conservatives in America... so many millions of people. Ranges of education levels, genders, ages, personalities, occupations, temperaments, motivations, lives and opinions. Can't you see how horrible it is to have a view like this about all of them? You hate all of them? You're convinced all of them are evil? You don't even know them.

Isn't blind and senseless hate what you're advocating against here? Or you just think your blind hate is valid while "theirs" isn't?

I think that if you'd been around here as long as I've been, you'd understand, (not that I believe for a second that I can actually speak for Greta), but that she's more like I am, that she 'hates' the haters. I love everyone, except that I 'hate' the haters, but even to them I give the benefit of doubt, as I understand determinism amongst humans. I believe she's of the same type as I am, at least as far as that type thing goes. I mean, thank goodness she's not as volatile as I can sometimes be. At 61 I'm just finding that I'm getting extremely tired of the "little shits" that exist! You know, like that Trump idiot!

As an American that actually sacrificed for her, and all her inhabitants, I find that many Americans are self absorbed opinionated buffoons, that don't have a clue beyond their own noses. Spare the rod...

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend your beliefs, standing up for your beliefs or refrain from arguing against the people in this thread. I'm not defending any of the individuals in this thread. I'm really referring to this comment:

This seems to just be just conservative tut-tutting about the concept of sex changes per se, seemingly because conservatives believe humans are all made perfect (aside from Democrats, liberals, progressives, secularists, Muslims, blecks, gays, transgenders, Chinese and women).

Conservatives in America... so many millions of people. Ranges of education levels, genders, ages, personalities, occupations, temperaments, motivations, lives and opinions. Can't you see how horrible it is to have a view like this about all of them? You hate all of them? You're convinced all of them are evil? You don't even know them.

Isn't blind and senseless hate what you're advocating against here? Or you just think your blind hate is valid while "theirs" isn't?

Anyone who calls himself 'conservative' is stating that he agrees with a certain set of ideas and political ideologies. It says some very definite things about that person's character. It indicates an unempathetic and rather mean-spirited personality, not to mention short-sighted, selfish and unimaginative. If people want to give themselves political labels then they just have to put up with others judging them by those same labels.

Lol, Nick, I think superficiality was always hip and I don't think the world ever had any awareness of the big picture.

Some people lean on certain views that rely on absolutes, depending on them for understanding the world and their place in it. Nuance doesn't fit anywhere and so it's easier just to pretend it doesn't exist.

I think people tend towards absolutes in the first place for psychological reasons, similar to what Walker's video refers to. That isn't my attempt in creating an us versus them and talking in absolutes to join the party though, there are always complexities that make everything harder to judge and understand and here is no exception. We can also assume that we aren't innocent of doing this sometimes even if we have complete self-awareness and good intentions.

Honestly though, I don't really get it. Even if, for example, Greta didn't think all conservatives were the scum of the Earth - it wouldn't make her arguments less compelling, true or virtuous as they were. From my perspective, it would rather make her arguments more interesting, to me at least, because if I know she doesn't disagree with conservatives because she hates them then I'm more interested to find out why she might be so opposed to what she considers conservative ideas. As it might mean she's seen some serious problems with them that I might like to hear about and consider or at least understand.

I mean it speaks to my impression of the current situation that I fully expect Greta, much like Spheresofbalance, to pretty much assume I'm a cunning conservative who's taken this position only for the purpose of disarming her and proceeding to convince her of how great conservativism is but whatever.I don't assume anything. I judge your words as you lay them down, they speak loud enough. There's no need to assume anything other than what they include.

The fact is that to be conservative is to be stagnant, not evolve, not learn.
And, to be liberal is to be fresh, to evolve, to learn.
Which do you prefer? Which ideology really sounds better for a universe that only ever changes?

And more importantly, why would one fear change?

Walker

I'm not really sure but anyone who thinks it's only the progressives and liberals that think tribally in American politics hasn't been paying attention. I think everyone is learning about what tribalism and prejudice and so on are. The problem is that liberals/progressives have only learned to see it in those who aren't liberal/progressive and conservatives only see it when liberals/progressives do it.

Even though, I, like you, see this a lot more, at least as far as younger people are concerned, in the left than anywhere else (except extreme right) I still just try to think of these groups as comprising of individuals. I just preach for people to be able to see tribalism, prejudice and so on when they see it regardless of who's doing it and hope this leads to guilty people rather than guilty groups.

But I've been fortunate to have some influences around me which prevented me from going under. Many are not so lucky

It sounds like you’ve already identified the how, namely, see that the children have the same unstated preventions that you had.

And to understand how that works, apply the principles that you see in the specifics of your life to the specifics of other circumstances.

Share the principles you’ve discovered in a 500-word essay, to benefit all who have not yet discovered them.

Why do you put so much faith in words and a 500 word essay? I began a thread on universal language just to prove we don’t understand each other. Modern society is gradually losing its sense of objective scale and relativity. The same word can have several qualitative meanings and connotations so what good is a 500 word essay? How can I describe the relative power of art and the relative power of ideas?

Take the word Christian for example. Who knows what Christianity is much less what a Christian is? Yet we believe we do. Socrates discovered that those around him had no idea of what they were talking about. Socrates was called wise because he was in the same boat and admitted it.

A person writing about the difference between Christianity and Christendom in secular society would be considered ignorant of the no true Scotsman argument so they are the same. What sort of 500 word essay could make the difference understandable? So I prefer to pass the buck to another more respected person to take the blame for secular wrath. I would quote Kierkegaard

People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.
(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.
ibid p.295

Christianity is one of these concepts like art and love which can only be realistically appreciated within a sense of scale and relativity.

Having lost the sense of scale and relativity it is easy to claim there is no difference between male and female. You are what you say you are. If a person claims to be a woman, they are a woman. If a person claims to be an artist they are an artist. If a person claims to be a Christian, they are a Christian. Christianity cannot be put back into worldly Christendom since it isn’t wanted. Those who understand are out there. The searcher must find them and recognize them thru their sense of inner taste

All I am saying is that there are a minority of the young who feel this is all a crock. They want to meet those who can communicate understanding rather than PC Oprahisms. They are in a difficult position because the world in Plato’s cave is against them. It has become accustomed to living with imagination and self deception. There is no “pearl of great price” to seek.other than for a minority very much alive inside who need other similar souls who know it does.

You are saying that instead of relying on the senses, you relied on other peoples' and your own intuition?

Why rely; why not verify? The senses are important and have their place in the animal world. But for those concerned with universal meaning and purpose as well as the objective purpose of humanity within it, something beyond animal senses is required.

Do you object to this practice for pragmatic reasons or do you feel there's something inherently wrong with only being concerned with earthly matters?

I object to spirit killing because it is a matter of inner life and death especially for the young. Jacob Needleman explains in the intro to his book: “The Heart of Philosophy.”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

There are two types of skepticism: intellectual and emotional. Intellectual skepticism and the critical mind is essential to avoid all forms of deception.

In contrast emotional skepticism is a poison for the mind. A person lives their life in emotional denial incapable of receiving the impressions of life with impartiality. The great ideas essential to further inner growth are met with the preconception of denial. Such people are often influential and dominant in universities. They serve to create “things.” I support those who help the growth of human individuals through the depth of philosophy and the essence of religion.

Why do you put so much faith in words and a 500 word essay? I began a thread on universal language just to prove we don’t understand each other.

Why do you mention faith in the process of repeating the same questions about causation?

For all you know, developing the capacity to write an A+ essay may have been one of the preventions that kept you from going under.

You gots to learn a particular language afore you can re-discover the universal language.

To love humanity, you must first love a human. (You may quote me.)

You have prompted yet anther serious question with your sincere inquiries though, however it’s one you can only answer with inference, since you’ve never gone under.

The answer will help humanity, if only with faith and hope should you answer yes. Your attention to this avenue of thought is appreciated.

Can someone who really hits rock bottom ever transcend that, and discover what you say is best to discover?

As a bonus, do you think a little kid would get more from writing an essay, than from reading Weil?
(A yes suggests a cross-over point in life for when reading rewards more than writing, or perhaps it is that Weil never crossed over and always found more in herself, which could be her distinction you recognize as genius.)

For all you know, developing the capacity to write an A+ essay may have been one of the preventions that kept you from going under.

I remember years ago when I was a teenager. I was listening to Jean Shepherd on the radio and he said “Gang there are two kinds of people: the punctuators and the rest of us.” I knew right away I was part of something called “the rest of us.”

A kid very early in life realizes that they are surrounded by BS so they learn to BS in order to fit in. They become punctuators taught to believe in style over substance. They always get an A+ on essays because of style. They are able to fit in and put their commas in the right places. Some become so good at expressing style over substance they become politicians.

To love humanity, you must first love a human. (You may quote me.)

As I’ve learned it, the first thing you have to do is experience resistance to love. I never liked centipedes and I participated in an experiment once where I tried to experience where my love for life ended. Even though this large centipede was in an open box, as my face grew closer to it my resistance increased to receiving the impressions of this harmless creature. I realized that all this talk of loving was naïve since if we are incapable of love for life of even harmless insects, how can we with a straight face speak of love for human beings who are far more complex. Our acquired resistance prevents it So we don’t know how to consciously give love but instead prefer to believe in Oprah land.

Can someone who really hits rock bottom ever transcend that, and discover what you say is best to discover?

As a bonus, do you think a little kid would get more from writing an essay, than from reading Weil?
(A yes suggests a cross-over point in life for when reading rewards more than writing, or perhaps it is that Weil never crossed over and always found more in herself, which could be her distinction you recognize as genius.)

Hitting bottom is the key. Without it one lie just replaces another as we get older but our being remains the same.

I’ve posted this excerpt from Simone Weil before but is worth repeating since what is meant by grace filling empty spaces is a profound idea and what makes change possible.

Kids like adults vary in the quality of their being. Some would realize what Simone means and others would think it nonsense. I have nothing against those who think it nonsense; I just support those who feel what she means in the depth of their being so can profit from it. Why kick them as they struggle to understand? She wrote:

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace

Since BS is largely our life and hitting bottom means letting go of BS, it takes a lot before we are willing to die to our BS. Some college students would feel naturally what she means while most would just ignore it. The spirit killers will oppose what she means and steer those who feel what she means into political agendas to join those willing and vulnerable to become snowflakes. I support those still alive on the inside who are not yet properly educated into secular progressive standards having no conception of “grace.”

I learned as a teen that the baseline of understanding is no thought which reveals the arbitrary nature of thoughts in the effortless and natural ordering of life-significance. You may ask, well who are you. Nobody and no thing when no thought, which is the baseline of thoughtful comparison.

Your thoughts about essays bring to mind a counterpoint.

In painting, the old Impressionists, Cubists, Abstract Expressionists, Fauvists, and so on, those revolutionaries who first ventured onto those untrodden paths, were masters of realism, literally and also likely in perception of reality since they had to see exactly what was there in front of them, in detail, no glossing over, no illusions.

In the evolution of responsibility*, first finger-paints and a child’s watercolors (a child’s thoughts other those imitated from questions answered); then, learning the rules of shadow, light, perspective and color via study and doing (A+ essay, the end of formal education ... realistic painting); then, the wild frontier of objective intelligence where you are the authority of your own life ... transcend the known to discover the unknown.

Crawling is necessary for development, but some do learn to walk without crawling (the playpen bound), which may affect the walking in ways undetected.

No crawling in adulthood, no hitting bottom.

Anyone who wants to go under is coo-coo, thus such a milestone must be choiceless, although the free-willers may say that those who go under actually choose to go under and just don't know it.

It's kinda tough to teach a kid that you have to hit rock bottom in order to have it all.

That summation of objective would definitely fail the administration's approval of lesson plan.

* As opposed to the input of questions answered by an outside authority.

You know perfectly well what a Jewish minority would mean (and you don't give a damn).

IF you affirmed humanity it would mean nothing other than another Democracy.

but you and your panties seem to be bunched in the concept of "a Jewish minority = end to democracy"

you seem to affirm that muslims (via their nature) are unable to support a Democratic state (and so its A-OK to put 3/4 million is an Open Ghetto, the other 3/4 million under Marshal Law without the rights of Israeli Citizenship.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend your beliefs, standing up for your beliefs or refrain from arguing against the people in this thread. I'm not defending any of the individuals in this thread. I'm really referring to this comment:

This seems to just be just conservative tut-tutting about the concept of sex changes per se, seemingly because conservatives believe humans are all made perfect (aside from Democrats, liberals, progressives, secularists, Muslims, blecks, gays, transgenders, Chinese and women).

Conservatives in America... so many millions of people. Ranges of education levels, genders, ages, personalities, occupations, temperaments, motivations, lives and opinions. Can't you see how horrible it is to have a view like this about all of them? You hate all of them? You're convinced all of them are evil? You don't even know them.

Isn't blind and senseless hate what you're advocating against here? Or you just think your blind hate is valid while "theirs" isn't?

Anyone who calls himself 'conservative' is stating that he agrees with a certain set of ideas and political ideologies. It says some very definite things about that person's character. It indicates an unempathetic and rather mean-spirited personality, not to mention short-sighted, selfish and unimaginative. If people want to give themselves political labels then they just have to put up with others judging them by those same labels.

there are two forms of Conservatives (they can be mutually exclusive - as in Libertarians (which i affirm personally most of the time today - since the democratic party left me 30 yrs ago).

Economic, and Social.

I find some relation to the former type, not to the latter type of "conservative".

Conservatives in America... so many millions of people. Ranges of education levels, genders, ages, personalities, occupations, temperaments, motivations, lives and opinions. Can't you see how horrible it is to have a view like this about all of them? You hate all of them? You're convinced all of them are evil? You don't even know them.

Isn't blind and senseless hate what you're advocating against here? Or you just think your blind hate is valid while "theirs" isn't?

Do you think this video is an attempt to awaken millennials from old, worn-out progressive delusion?

Or

Do you think it’s accurate reporting of political ignorance which appeals to non-intellectual emotionalism, via a cynical parody of gullible Obamanites who are soothed by calculated speech patterns.

off topic - maybe, why do you think Obama appealed to emotions (he was one of the most cerebral presidents we ever had (I like the man as a person, thought he was genuine (not fake like either of the Clintons), but sadly weak overall (too weak to "Fix" america - caved to AIPAC and Reichbug congress (though with limited executive powers, used it with exec orders to over-ride - the thing i never agreed with - but understood WRT to the opposition "party of no" - this successor is now playing the same game sadly.

Agent Orange is the least cerebral president we have had, and is - unlike Obama - playing on the emotions of the weak minded/percieved victims of the closed coalmines/auto workers.